Posted on 01/08/2004 3:34:13 PM PST by kellynla
I am beginning to think John McCain actually won the presidency in 2000.
Conservatives were relieved when the Straight Talk Express petered out during the 2000 primary season. John McCain, although tough on national security and runaway spending, was hardly a conservative on major issues such as campaign finance, healthcare reform and immigration.
Yet this is exactly where we find President Bush today (except unlike McCain, Bush doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with runaway spending). Last year President George Bush signed the McCain-Feingold bill into law, which is one of the worst assaults on political speech this country has ever seen. When conservatives (and many liberals) howled, the President’s advisers whispered that they believed the Supreme Court would “clean up” the more onerous parts of the bill which dictates the types of political ads that can air before a general election or primary contest. Of course the Supreme Court rubber stamped the entire thing and so the result is less, not more political speech in the U.S.
And now President Bush charges across the landscape to rescue us from our “unfair” and “broken” immigration system by rewarding people who came here illegally with the promise of legal status. This proposal essentially mirrors the immigration legislation sponsored by—you got it—Sen. McCain. Under the Bush/McCain plan, anyone outside the U.S. who wants to come into the country would only need to show proof of a “job offer” in order to get an initial three-year work permit that would be renewable for an unspecified period. Such temporary workers could also bring family members here. What prevents these people from staying on beyond their time premitted for "temporary" work? As it stands now, there seems to be no limit on the immigration —temporary or permanent— allowed under this plan. And as for the claim that this would be a big boon to the American economy? Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $20 billion each year, in extra education, healthcare, welfare, and prison costs. Today thirty-four percent of Mexicans legally in the U.S., and 25 percent of Mexicans illegally here are welfare.
How are those costs diminished under the Bush plan?
Most bewildering is the Administration idea that this plan is necessary for homeland security reasons. On the contrary, it would not be surprising if some would-be terrorists are among the millions of illegals who will become “documented” under the Bush plan. As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) charged, "Guest worker programs and gradual amnesty provide cover for terrorists."
It’s easy to understand why Vicente Fox, McCain, big business, and La Raza are happy this week—but what’s in this new proposal for working class American families? How about those immigrants who a lot of time and money to comply with our immigration laws?
The real answer is absolutely nothing. The only reasonable prediction is that wages for a wide range of jobs will be kept artificially depressed by outside workers—now with “legal status” will work for peanuts. “I have worked construction for 30 years as a truck driver (18-wheeler),” wrote one of my listeners, “And every year my pay has gone down because Mexicans are flooding the trucking industry…."
When Bill Clinton says we live in an “increasingly borderless world,” we’re not surprised. It’s the usual globaloney blather. But when a Republican president advocates a policy that will make our borders effectively meaningless, we should be outraged.
With his approval numbers high, President Bush has made a devil’s bargain with business and Hispanic groups. Elites from both parties are ignoring the view of a strong majority of Americans that we need to stop illegal immigration, not high-five it.
Another listener wonders: “What happened to the ‘party of principle’? More like the party of pandering. Considering the massive numbers involved, this amnesty being floated really is Pandora's Box, once opened cannot be closed.”
President Bush has now done the equivalent of posting a sign at the border: “Help Wanted for $5.15/hour.”
Conservatives are right to be disappointed in President Bush. We are right to ignore the Administration’s promise that this time, non-amnesty amnesty will be good for the American people. Our citizenship and legal residence should be reserved for people who love this country enough that breaking her laws—whether at the border or on the street—is out of the question. The next time I hear from his Administration that it is doing all it can to protect our homeland, secure our borders, and increase our standard of living, I will laugh.
Now I know the definition of “compassionate conservative:” a person who campaigns as a conservative, then sells out key conservative principles.
Nor is it a violation of anyone’s rights to park marked INS cars and vans outside the criminal business. When the illegal aliens show up for work and see uniformed INS agents and marked INS vehicles, most of them will turn around and leave. A few days of this will put a real dent in the criminal employer’s productivity.
We don’t have to trash what’s left of the Bill of Rights to solve this problem. All we need is an administration that believes in the rule of law.
I agree, and that's why I support the candidacy of Michael Peroutka for president.
The suggestion that the American economy would stall and crash if the 10 million+ illegal alliens were to return to Mexico tomorrow, is garbage. Cheap manual labor tends to mask grossly inefficient practices in dire need of an overhaul. It's the easy way, the lazy way. But America didn't become great--it didn't set the standard for worker productivity--by taking the lazy route. I can think of nothing that would better jolt our prodictivity and make us even stronger than to eliminate the underground cheap labor market. Industries reliant on cheap manual labor would be forced to innovate and cut fat. Marginal companies would go under; their assets would be bought by more competent survivors. There would likely be well-paid spin-off jobs generated for US citizens who would effectively be outproducing cheap laborors 10 or 20 to one or more. Robotics (as you alluded to) is just one example.
Now, Mexico's economy might well collapse--and that's likely what's driving this. The present setup is perfect for Fox. He doesn't have to implement any substantial changes in the corrupt and woefully inefficient Mexican infrastructure. He pushes 10 million laborers across the border where American citizens in general (not the employers in particular) pick up the social and external costs (medical care, schooling, criminal prosecution and incarceration). In return untold billions of US dollars flow back into Mexico. Mexico bears no costs and picks up a windfall in greenbacks.
SUSSA has focused in on what seems to be several considerations on some very key weak points in the present immigratoin control system that merit further consideration.
Wonder why they didn't try a stunt like that when Ronald Reagan was president?
No, I asked what the overall approval polls for PRESIDENT BUSH were.
I think we can all agree that they consistantly run in the 70 percentile against "Illegal" Immigration and has held steady for at least a decade.
And, in my experience, polls like that are like asking if someone's against sin and in favor of motherhood--it's like asking Democrat voters how a "generic Democrat" (whom they can project their ideal candidate onto) does against Bush. In this case, the respondent can simply say that they oppose illegal immigration. That's an easy answer.
Start asking questions such as "Do you support requiring all citizens and legal residents to carry identification papers on their persons at all times, on pain of imprisonment?"
The answer to THAT question will be interesting.
No. I'm saying that it's going to take a LAW ENFORCEMENT approach to solve, and that a military approach is off-limits unless you're proposing to invade Mexico and remove the kleptocracy that runs that country. (An interesting idea, actually.)
Do you mean to say that an invading "hostile military" can only be regarded as such if they are wearing fatigues and carrying arms?
Yes. That is what "hostile military" means.
HEAR, HEAR! (Hey -- I'm sure Vicente Fox and his cohorts CAN technically be construed to be encouraging an "unarmed" invasion)
Quite frankly, until we get a handle on the current crisis, suspending or re-adjusting the fine print of 'posse comitatus' under the circumstances IS warranted.
Realistically, and until then, can any "civilian" BP ever be large enough to be a deterent OR effective?
The attitude that the laws of the land are "fine print" is not a good one. Changes to the Posse Comitatus Act should not be undertaken lightly. Right now, there is an exemption for drug-related cases. That exemption led to military support at Waco--all the BATF had to do was say that they'd heard a rumor that there was a meth lab at Mount Carmel. In the future, all they'd have to say is that they'd heard "F16Fighter" was smuggling illegal aliens.
Realistically, and until then, can any "civilian" BP ever be large enough to be a deterent OR effective?
I have very bad news for you: the military can't be large enough to be effective, either, unless you start mass conscription just for the purpose of patrolling the border. BTW, you'd probably have to start drafting women of child-bearing age into a "Maternity Corps" and only discharge them after they've birthed four kids--because absent that, you start running out of draft-age bodies in about 20-30 years. American citizens and legal residents have fertility figures that are BELOW replacement rate. As America's demographics shift more towards the older end of the spectrum, that problem will get worse.
Then you're ultimately suggesting that we kill all those who attempt to cross our border. Pretending that you're not is right up there with Clinton saying that his willie in Monica's mouth didn't equal sex.
And, incidentally, you'd also make America's first capital misdemeanor.
While I agree with you in principle Poob, shall we have a little talk with the Commander-In-Chief AND our Legislators about this one?
There has been a selective enforcement and upholding of Constitutional Law of everything from deficit spending to this issue of border enforcement -- due to chronically ignoring the "fine print."
"The military can't be large enough to be effective, either, unless you start mass conscription just for the purpose of patrolling the border."
Fine then -- then let's give BP priority and realistic resources in which to enforce to borders. Better late than never, but WHEN?? At the present -- even after 9/11 -- it's painfully obvious that for whatever reason, our government has still regarded the Southwest invasion as a triviality. Rhetorically speaking --why??
Upon posting a clear and concise warning, "a few shots fired in their direction" might not only be "cost effective," but America's right to do so in order to protect it's sovereignty AND have it's laws enforced.
For that we owe NO ONE an explanation.
Because the hijackers came in legally via other Western nations--they didn't hop across the Rio Grande.
There's a reason that they opted to not do that.
Not gonna mention that 15 of 19 were Saudis -- NOT courtesy of "Western" nations, however, they could just as well have brought in a small army through the southwest border, aka The Securty Sieve.
Another interesting point: In your opinion, shall Homeland Security have the right to "racially profile"?
Guess again, they came to other western nations before coming to America. They'd be subject to more scrutiny coming direct from Saudi or Egypt.
however, they could just as well have brought in a small army through the southwest border, aka The Securty Sieve
And they opt to not do so for specific reasons that actually make sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.